RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: My op-ed in defense of sex work (Bay Area Reporter)

Discussion
#1

I fully support anyone's freedom to promote more taxes, slavery, prohibition, police brutality, etc. This same freedom extends to the criticism of women, blacks, Jews, gays, witches, etc.
But it is preposterous to say it is not offensive and should not be treated ad such.

It seems we will have to respectfully disagree here John….speaking poorly of a behavior is not the same as lobbying for the use of force to prohibit a practice.
We are all free to lobby for what we believe to represent our values and defend them in the marketplace of ideas…at least here on the discuss list.

Of course one wouldn’t expect to be having this discussion on our activist list.

Mike

#2

"Indeed, raids like this (and outlawing prostitution itself) are so stupid that they threaten to preclude any rational discussion about the cultural and ethical ramifications of so-called 'sex work.' Obviously sex can be work; a more important question is whether it should be.... In any event, one can deplore prostitution without invoking the law or the apparatus of the State."

MY POSITION IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY OPPOSED TO THE OUTLAWING OF PROSTITUTION. AT LEAST STARCHILD HAD THE DECENCY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IN OWN ARTICLE -- MAKING FOR AN INTERESTING DIALOGUE.

WHAT'S TRULY OFFENSIVE -- EVEN SHAMEFUL -- IS THE ATTEMPT TO MISREPRESENT WHAT I'VE SAID OR WHAT I CLEARLY BELIEVE.

EQUALLY OFFENSIVE IS THE DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO PRECLUDE FREE DISCUSSION BY DECLARING MY VIEWS ANATHEMA. IF ANYTHING, THE ILLEGALITY OF PROSTITUTION OFFERS "VICTIMHOOD" AS A RATIONALE FOR CHILLING ALL DISCUSSION THAT ISN'T FAVORABLE TO THE "VICTIM."

THAT'S A VERY STRANGE, ALMOST ORWELLIAN DEFINITION OF "LIBERTY"!

#3

Although this was originally not my "fight," it so became when it appeared to me that my opinions on one aspect of prostitution -- conflating affection with affectation -- was interpreted as my opposing prostitution, wanting to outlaw prostitution, or inciting violence against prostitution. I would equate that interpretation to the current progressive politically correct attitude of banning Native American children's costumes for Halloween. Let me know if you would like the LPSF to start a new discussion list called "Safe Space Discussion," where there would be strict rules as to what words could and could not be used, and what ideas could and could not be discussed.

Folks, I don't give a rat's tail what profession you all choose! All is fine by me! By way of reminder, I was one of the few on this list who donated to Prop K, placed on the ballot a few years ago, and made quite a bit of effort telling my friends and customers why they should vote for it. In case you don't recall, Prop K was a San Francisco ballot measure to decriminalize prostitution.

So there!

Marcy

#4

Holy crap! Since when is OK to denounce the practice of commercial affection but it is NOT OK to denounce the practice of criticizing the commercial affection?
Somehow now there are two people who want to shut me up for my opinions or start a place to denounce whatever, without unwanted opinion! WTF?

#5

Say what? I give up. I'll go join the Begonia Society now.

Marcy

#6

John Bechtol writes: "Speaking poorly of a voluntary trade, is the foundation of its prohibition. Any pretense otherwise is no more than thinly-veiled hostility seeking a collective remedy and we all know the horrors of such remedies. Since when is OK to denounce the practice of commercial affection but it is NOT OK to denounce the practice of criticizing the commercial affection? Somehow now there are two people who want to shut me up for my opinions."

Nonsense!

Here's an analogy... Many years ago, my sister -- pregnant with her first child -- joyfully described the feeling of "the baby kicking around" inside her. Knowing she was a feminist, I asked her -- in light of her feelings at that moment -- whether she could imagine ever having an abortion, and how those feelings might affect her views on the entire subject. Without hesitation, she answered, "Are you crazy? NEVER! I just don't need some politician making that decision for me, or telling me what to do."

In other words, "speaking poorly" is NOT tantamount to "seeking a collective remedy," let alone to the horrors of the latter. So much for that scurrilous innuendo!

What next? Trigger warnings? John's approach bears an uncanny resemblance to the selective grievance-mongering of the left -- for that matter, even to the Leninist suppression of "counterrevolutionary" speech (LOL)!

My criticisms are a far cry from John's blanket condemnation of my views as "unacceptable" -- at that, after (at this point, deliberately) mischaracterizing them as statist.

No one's trying to shut you up, John. You're entitled to your opinions, and you're entitled to state them.

You don't get to misrepresent my views, or to stifle their expression as "politically incorrect" -- not without being called out for attempting to do so.

---In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, <javlin@...> wrote :

Holy crap! Since when is OK to denounce the practice of commercial affection but it is NOT OK to denounce the practice of criticizing the commercial affection?

Somehow now there are two people who want to shut me up for my opinions or start a place to denounce whatever, without unwanted opinion! WTF?